A note on the “unconditioned” (asaṅkhata)

Essays
1

We’ve had some conversations on the translation of asaṅkhata. As I begin annotating the Asaṅkhatasaṁyutta, I have reviewed the term. Here is my note.

In Vedic usage, something that is saṅkhata (Sanskrit saṁskṛta, “conditioned”) has been worked through a process (saṅkhāra) that shapes it into its “completed” or “perfected” form (eg. Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 7.1.2.6). To be saṅkhata is to be “equipped” for battle (Rig Veda 8.33.9) or “prepared” for the ritual (Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 8.6.1.1). When natural language is “refined” through meticulous grammar, it becomes saṅkhata, or as we say today, “Sanskrit”.

Linguistically, it is a past participle, describing something that has been made into this form. But it also conveys the sense of something “readied” or “energized” and thus fit for purpose, “potent” to perform its function.

The Buddha inverts the Vedic value system, positioning the “unconditioned” Nibbāna as independent of Vedic or other rituals of “potentization”. Asaṅkhata conveys the sense of “unworked” (as a natural gem), or “unconsecrated” (by Vedic rites) and thus implies a raw or natural state.

In Pali, asaṅkhata is used as an adjective describing something; but that something is unstated as the referent is empty. So whereas in English we say, “the unconditioned”, in Pali it is just “unconditioned” and so does not imply an existent state or reality that is unconditioned.

The prefix saṁ is sometimes said to mean “together” yielding the sense “compounded”, but usage suggests the primary sense of saṁ here is “good, well, perfect”.

Nor does saṅkhata convey the sense “created” or “fabricated”, but rather “processed”. This aligns with the Buddhist rejection of creation from nothing. Existence is an ongoing process, inheriting what was made in the past, processing and potentizing it and thereby shaping the future.

The English word “conditioned” conveys these senses quite well, implying something dependent on conditions, shaped into a specified state, or prepared for a given purpose.

21 Likes
Another note on asaṅkhata
Another note on asaṅkhata
Another note on asaṅkhata
Another note on asaṅkhata
2

If the referent were empty (an absence) why have a sutta just to reinforce its ‘atthitā’ (existence)?

iti43
“Atthi, bhikkhave, ajātaṁ abhūtaṁ akataṁ asaṅkhataṁ.
No cetaṁ, bhikkhave, abhavissa ajātaṁ abhūtaṁ akataṁ asaṅkhataṁ, nayidha jātassa bhūtassa katassa saṅkhatassa nissaraṇaṁ paññāyetha.”

It is a reality that is being called unconditioned, not an unreality. “If the unconditioned didnt exist, an exit from the conditioned would not be possible.”

4 Likes
3

Bhante Sunyo recently explained in a post that dictionaries and contexts give the word the meaning of “possibility”: there is the possibility of cessation, the possibility of non-creation, the possibility of non-birth, non-death. If this possibility did not exist, then there would be no salvation from birth, and so on.

3 Likes
4

Compare: if the destruction of wood by fire did not exist, then it would be impossible to have ash. Does the concept of “destruction” therefore acquire the meaning of an existing reality or sphere?

1 Like
6

ajātam is = na jātam
abhūtam is = na bhūtam
akatam = na katam
asaṅkhatam = na saṅkhatam

So we are talking about four complementary sets of attributes here i.e. A & not-A , B & not-B, C & not-C, D & not-D. Each set here is a mutually-exclusive duality, but taken together each duality exhausts the universe, but taken individually they are not exhaustive, and they do not intersect.

The Buddha in iti43 is saying that if the attribute not-D did not exist, an escape from attribute D would not be possible. In other words, if D is real, not-D is also real, which is the reason why a movement from D to not-D becomes possible (according to the Buddha). That is, he is saying one cannot claim to have reached nirvāṇa if nirvāṇa is assumed to be an absolute non-existence. It is only by taking nirvāṇa as real and existing can one meaningfully talk of a movement from non-nirvāṇa (saṃsāra) to nirvāṇa.

If a goal is not real, the path toward it is a dead end. For a traveler to reach a destination, the destination must exist before they reach it, for there is no path to a non-existing potential.

In iti43 he is not just reinforcing the atthitā of that thing, but also claiming that all four of them (not-A, not-B, not-C and not-D) are in fact referring to one and the same thing i.e. the referent not only ‘exists’ but is also singular.

Had it been a mere absence of attributes he was referring to, it would be very odd to describe them all as being indicative of the same one thing. The mere possibility of something (while actively denying its existence) does not explain what iti43 is talking about.

“Destruction of wood by fire” and “ash” are not comparable to the mutuality/duality that exists between the attributes saṅkhatam & a-saṅkhatam. It doesn’t seem to be an apt comparison.

3 Likes
7

I think the discussion here is dependent on one’s views of nibbāna being projected onto the lines in Iti43.

The lines could refer to the reality of realizing nibbāna while alive – knowing there is/will be no rebirth, nothing fundamentally is created or lost (except dukkha), or made, etc. In this context “atthita” is pointing to the reality of full awakening and the absence of these characteristics. The absence of these characteristics is “unconditioned” as the defilements have ceased and cannot return; in the sense that no further rebirth is assured and unconditional in that sense; in the sense that “mental dukkha”, the second arrow, is unconditionally gone.

In terms of final nibbāna, full cessation, while not “an existent,” can still be pointed to as the reality of: cessation. Like saying “The fire is completely extinguished” points to a reality about the fire being out, yet there’s no formal existent ”thing” being implied.

5 Likes
8

There the existing fire gets extinguished. Here what are you comparing to the existing fire that in your understanding gets extinguished?

Are you extinguishing an impersonal dukkha such that it doesnt arise for anyone else? Or are you extinguishing your personal dukkha such that it doesnt arise again for you? Or are you extinguishing yourself such that you yourself become incapable of arising again in the world to experience such dukkha?

Besides the path to nirvana is a volitional process, you voluntarily choose the path towards nirvana - it is not a mechanical process like a fire getting extinguished all by itself without any volition behind it. Therefore I fail to see what exactly you are comparing here.

As long as you view nirvana as a destination, and the practice of Buddhism as being a path towards it, and a nirvana that can be attained even when alive, the destination must exist before they reach it, for there is no path towards a non-existing potential, and there is no attainment of it by a non-existing attainer.

1 Like
9

We see things differently here. That’s fine.

The Buddha’s teachings are close to Phenomenological – experiences via the aggregates and senses, as in SN35.23.

The fire is experienced in this way; the Buddha imo doesn’t deal with ontological issues so much as with experiences ,which I think we agree are conditional and dukkha. When all experiences cease, as after final nibbāna, dukkha ceases. That’s all.

It’s not a place or realm or any thing at all. Just cessation.

In this sense, nibbāna is not “here” or “there. The Path in this view isn’t towards “something” but leads to the cessation of all defilements while alive, then to a final death without rebirth. So, again not a “thing” to reach.

Beings, as combinations of selfless processes do experience dukkha, but there’s no solid “thing” or entity that is freed from it. Processes cease → dukkha ends.

Regarding speculation about all other beings regarding this, see AN10.95:

“In the same way, it’s not the Realized One’s concern whether the whole world is saved by this, or half, or a third. But the Realized One knows that whoever is saved from the world—whether in the past, the future, or the present—all have given up the five hindrances, corruptions of the heart that weaken wisdom. They have firmly established their mind in the four kinds of mindfulness meditation. And they have truly developed the seven awakening factors. That’s how they’re saved from the world, in the past, future, or present.”

As we know, the Buddha said he could point out the Way but couldn’t directly liberate other beings/processes.

3 Likes
10

Experiences can only cease for the one who experiences. Dukkha can only cease for the one who feels it. Rebirth can only cease for the one who is reborn. There is no such thing as an impersonal experience, impersonal dukkha or impersonal rebirth. Cessation of existence can only be for one that exists. Is this the case in your understanding too, or is it not?

In the very same way there is no such thing as an impersonal end to dukkha (i.e. impersonal nibbana). As long as we say that it is the Buddha who has attained nibbana, it is his personal nibbana. His nibbana continues to remain his nibbana, it doesnt ever become another person’s nibbana. That being the case, how can nibbana not be personal (if you think it is not personal)?

A fire that gets extinguished however does not feel dukkha, it has no personhood even when it exists and has no volition to extinguish itself, it does not choose to get extinguished, and doesnt get reborn due to its karma. A fire doesnt by its extinguishment become a Buddha. So I dont yet see the relevance of this example, when explaining the volitional activity of a person that leads to their nibbana.

The existence of a fire and its eventual non-existence is measurable and recognizeable in time and space. The existence and non-existence of dukkha can only be known in the mind of the dukkha’s experiencer. How then can someone claim that dukkha’s extinguishment is not concerned with ontology?

1 Like
11

Except there is no “one” experiencing anything. What’s “experiencing” are the senses and aggregates – no particular entity.

The combinations of processes that are combining in ways particular to “you” are of course different than other beings.

Just as combinations of processes can be unique to manifesting roses and daisies.

There’s no fire-entity that ceases. Just processes manifesting as flame cease and that’s all.

Conventionally, we can say it’s personal in the sense that the processes labeled “Buddha” or Sariputta continued while the processes of all defilements ceased. Then, after the final death, all those processes ceased, so dukkha ceased.

But yes, it’s still present for the combinations we conventionally label “you” and “me.” Unless you’re fully awakened. I’m not.

Volition is also conditional, another form of processes; an aggregate.

Saying fire doesn’t experience dukkha … I’m not sure what your point is. No one is saying a rock necessarily feels anything. You seem to be taking an example literally.

From what I can tell, and I may be mistaken, your view appears to be that there is a real core to a being or to sensed phenomena and that this core is somehow liberated into a real “thing” called nibbāna.

That’s fine, and we may just agree to disagree on this.

All I’ll offer is that the understanding that when all conditions (which are dukkha)cease, dukkha must cease as well.

All best

2 Likes
12

So you agree dukkha does not arise to non-persons, it arises only to persons with feelings. A cessation of dukkha is only relevant to persons who can feel it.

There is no benefit of dukkha ceasing to a non-existing person or a non-person (for no dukkha exists for them to feel in the first place).

The benefit of dukkha’s cessation can only be to a person who can feel dukkha. Existence and personhood are therefore central to attainment of nibbana.

It appears that you accept the ontological basis of my understanding.

1 Like
13

But I don’t.

Using words like “persons”, I think for you, indicates a real entity with some sort of essence or core.

When viewed from the standpoint of aggregates and sensory processes, including contact and feelings, no such entity or “core” is needed.

When fire-processes go out, heat stops.

When conditional combinations of processes stop, dukkha ceases.

I’ve enjoyed our convo. Thanks.

In my experience, these issues tend to go round and round…:folded_hands:

1 Like
14

Senses and aggregates dont feel dukkha, if that were the case impersonal senses and aggregates would attain nibbana. There being no person to limit the nibbāna, one person’s nibbāna would then be everyone’s nibbana. We know that this is not the case in early Buddhism, and that nibbana is implicitly tied inseparably to the person, who is therefore taken to be ontologically real for nibbana to be limited to them.

The Buddha would not need to teach the Dhamma to real persons if there were no real persons. When we read the Buddha’s discourses, we dont credit them to the Buddha’s mouth or to his other senses or aggregates, we credit them to the Buddha, i.e. we implicitly take him to be real. When we talk about his nibbana, we dont say it is not he, but actually some undefined senses and aggregates that attained nibbāna. This line of reasoning is not authentic Buddhism in my understanding.

Dukkha is for a real person who feels it, and the cessation of dukkha (nibbana) is for a real person who pursues it. It is only of benefit to a real person who makes a volitional personal choice to pursue the path to reach the end of dukkha. Personhood and existence (i.e. the ontological basis of nibbana) cannot evaporate if the existence of dukkha is taken to be a noble truth. Not only does dukkha need a real person to feel it but the cessation of dukkha needs to be limited to the very same real person who formerly felt it, therefore personhood and existence is ontologically implicit in early Buddhist doctrine.

Besides normally Sanskrit and Pali are SOV languages i.e. the verb normally should come last in the sentence. In iti43, however the Buddha begins the sentence with “Atthi, bhikkave… ajātam abhūtam akatam asaṅkhatam” - this is called verb-fronting (“There IS, bhikkhus…an unborn..”) to emphasize the ‘atthi’ i.e. existence of that thing. The whole point of the sutta is to emphatically affirm the existence and reality of that which is described as ajāta, abhūta, akata & asaṃkhata.

Also note the word nissaraṇa in the same sutta - nissaraṇa means “exit” - exit/escape of something from somewhere to somewhere-else. This is not the exit of aggregates from samsara, or the nibbana for aggregates that is being suggested. It is the nibbana of a real person (i.e. their deliverance from their personal dukkha) .

The verses at the end of the sutta make it even more clear that what is being called jātam, bhūtam, samuppannaṃ, katam, saṅkhatam and addhuvam is the real person subject to old-age (jarā), death (maraṇa) slaughter (saṅghāta), disease (roga) etc.

He describes the person’s escape (nissaraṇa) from it with the adjectives peaceful (santaṁ), unarguable i.e. real (atakkāvacaraṁ), permanent (dhuvaṁ), unborn (ajātam), unmade (asamuppannam), unsorrowful (asokam), pure state (virajam padam), an end to dukkhas (nirodho dukkhadhammānaṁ), end of further conditioning (saṅkhārūpasamo), and joy/comfort (sukha).

None of those adjectives would meaningfully characterize a mere mechanical (non-volitional) extinguishment of a fire or a mere absence of no particular thing. These are explicit positive characterizations of a real and existing state of affairs.

:folded_hands:

1 Like
15

Bu it does.

“Bhikkhus, I will teach you the unconditioned and the path leading to the unconditioned. Listen to that….

“And what, bhikkhus, is the unconditioned? The destruction of lust, the destruction of hatred, the destruction of delusion: this is called the unconditioned.

“Bhikkhus, I will teach you the uninclined and the path leading to the uninclined. Listen to that….

“And what, bhikkhus, is the uninclined?…”

To be elaborated in full as in §§1–12.

“Bhikkhus, I will teach you the taintless and the path leading to the taintless. Listen to that….

“Bhikkhus, I will teach you the truth and the path leading to the truth…. I will teach you the far shore … the subtle … the very difficult to see … the unaging … … the stable … the undisintegrating … the unmanifest … the unproliferated … the peaceful … the deathless … the sublime … the auspicious … … the secure …. the destruction of craving … the wonderful … the amazing … the unailing … the unailing state … Nibbāna … the unafflicted … dispassion … … purity … freedom … the unadhesive … the island … the shelter … the asylum … the refuge … …”

“Bhikkhus, I will teach you the destination and the path leading to the destination. Listen to that….

“And what, bhikkhus, is the destination? The destruction of lust, the destruction of hatred, the destruction of delusion: this is called the destination.

All these epithets refer to the cessation of passion, anger, and ignorance. Nothing more, nothing less.

3 Likes
16

The existence and reality of a person is implied in all of that.

Cessation of passion, anger and ignorance - is a goal only for the person who has that passion, anger and ignorance. Not the cessation of an impersonal passion, anger and ignorance.

Lust, hatred and delusion of a person. Reaching the destination implies that the destination is real, and the one moving towards such a real destination is also real.There is no path to a non-existing potential destination or movement towards it by a non-existing entity.

Impersonal things (rocks, aggregates, fire etc) do not attain nibbana - as they dont have dukkha. Nibbana is for real and existing persons who feel dukkha.

17

This is the word that Sanskrit gets its name - the “well formed language” that follows a refined set of grammatical rules, and so forth. Perhaps this is why Buddhist texts tend to be a mess when discovered - all sorts of “impossible” words and typos. They really were asaṃskṛta, as it were, or anti-Sanskrit.

4 Likes
18

Yes, that’s why all the above positive epithets are given not to the cessation of the khandhas (which follows), but to the cessation of the three fires. There must be a conventional self, one who experiences the miraculous, an island, a refuge, and so on. Refuge and shelter are called a state of mind devoid of everything that could make it vulnerable—this is a spiritual state. But since the mind cannot be constant and constantly experience such an experience (since nothing is constant—all formations are impermanent and there is no self to be found), this mind also fades away, into an even more inexplicable state, about which nothing can be said due to the fact that there are no longer any means of description or conjecture.

19

Did you mean asaṃskṛta? :slight_smile:

1 Like
20

:grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes: I did, just keeping the tradition going.

3 Likes
21

I am not talking about any conventional self - which is a mere mental strawman that people use to avoid dealing with the reality of personal experience.

Dukkha is a personally experienced ‘reality’. That is why it is the first noble truth. The truthfulness or reality of personal dukkha is axiomatic in all of Buddhism. There is no such thing as impersonal dukkha. Without personhood being real dukkha cannot arise.

So those who deny the reality of personhood and personal existence are implicitly challenging the very premise of the first noble truth.

Ergo the personhood that underles all experience of dukkha is the same personhood that underlies nibbana. Just as dukkha is limited to a person, nibbana is limited to that very same person.

Nibbana, which is based on personhood, does not dissolve the personhood that forms its basis. Even after the Buddha’s nibbana it remains ‘his’ nibbana. That is why ‘he’ will not be reborn. The finitude of the Buddha’s nibbana is dependent on his personhood. So the Buddha’s parinibbana is tied to him permanently as a person. No amount of mental gymnastics can make personhood unreal without thereby falsifying most of the core premises of Buddhist doctrine.